Centerfield

Coming in from the cold...

That is actually a rather good solution to the problem. But who's going to suggest it to the Afghan government?

IMO, opium is too powerfully addictive a drug for us to consider fostering its acceptance. My guess is that America is among the best customers for the stuff. Am I right about that?

Now if we were to legalize pot (which IMO is far less deleterious than opium and arguably less deleterious than America's chosen legal drug, alcohol) and help Afghani opium farmers become economically self-sufficient by growing pot instead, then we might have something.

I do credit libertarian arguments on the use of drugs from both an economic and civil freedoms point of view. But I think a line has to be drawn between those drugs that a substantial number of folks can use safely and those which lead to abuse and addiction for most. I'm open to correction as I am far from an expert in pharmacology, but my sense is that not all drugs are created equal.

bk,

I think you missed something. No one suggested legalizing recreational opium use. What's being suggested is that the opium produced in Afghanistan be purchased by drug companies to produce drugs that are now legal for medical use, which is the very thing that, according to the article, solved the opium problem in Turkey.

My bad for skimming twice. I can' believe I missed that, I'm usually a pretty good skimmer. OK, no one wants to legalize recreational opiate use. Good.

Still, aren't there competition, supply, and demand issues? Presumedly the demand for the legally used opiates is fairly finite, so Afghani opiates are going to compete with Turkish supplies. That's good for the drug companies buying them, and for the people further down the supply chain who buy them (hospitals and patients in pain), presuming the pharmas pass the savings along.

But isn't this likely to lead to either increased illicit farming in Turkey or increased overall opium farming in Afghanistan? Isn't it reasonable to presume that the demand for the illicit product is NOT going to go away, and that someone will meet that demand?

In other words, can we really expect afghani farmers to respond by growing only legal opiates? Or can we expect them to respond to additional opportunity with additional growing? Let's not forget that Turkey has a decently functioning government. What does Afghanistan have by comparison?

But isn't this likely to lead to either increased illicit farming in Turkey or increased overall opium farming in Afghanistan? Isn't it reasonable to presume that the demand for the illicit product is NOT going to go away, and that someone will meet that demand?

Increases in Turkish illicit production are possible; increases in Afghanistan are pretty unlikely, because production is already huge there. Right now, that's the ONLY way of making a good living outside Kabul.

Here's the thing: in Afghanistan, we have no troops or infrastructure atall to pursue any effective ban. Because it's a mountainous area, we'd have to send in several hundreds of thousands of troops to actually enforce an opium ban. Since we don't have anything like that to send, we'll just have to live with status quo. If we can find a way to legalize part of it, doesn't it make sense?

I dunno John. If you find out you can sell more, and you can produce more, then you produce more.

Does pharma even pay better prices for the product?

we have no troops or infrastructure atall to pursue any effective ban...we'd have to send in several hundreds of thousands of troops to actually enforce an opium ban... we don't have anything like that to send...

To me, these sound like solid reasons to expect that Afghanis are going to keep churning out vast quantities of the illicit product.

Right now, that's the ONLY way of making a good living outside Kabul.

If it's the only way, that tells me that increased demand would lead to more folks investigating the only known opportunity. But I don't suppose there's much chance that this would do much harm, unless it meant Talibani strongarmers in the shadows of a lucrative enterprise that appeared to be legitimate.

Jon,

I think this is definitely an idea worth exploring, but I had to reply to this:

Right now, that's the ONLY way of making a good living outside Kabul.

I'm gonna have to call bull---t on that one. Where are you getting the inf*rmation to support this conclusion? Granted, it's a very poor country and opportunities are limited, but, besides the opium trade, there are dozens of industries outside Kabul from which an Afghan can "make a good living" (including textiles and rugs, soap, furniture, shoes, mines [including copper and gems], and more). I recommend you actually look into Afghanistan's economy before making a blanket statement like that.

But, as David Kilcullen points out, one of the main reasons the Taliban encourage the poppy industry these days is not because they want more opium, but because it makes it that much more difficult for the Afghan citizens to then align with the legitimate government. Once a citizen has gotten into raising poppies, he's crossing the government and it becomes much easier for the Taliban to win over his sympathies. The "Turkey model" would change that somewhat.

Once a citizen has gotten into raising poppies, he's crossing the government and it becomes much easier for the Taliban to win over his sympathies. The "Turkey model" would change that somewhat.

Not to disagree, but to point out: only if the government can actually deliver something resembling a square and predictable deal. That's a large part of the conundrum we face in trying to reform middle eastern regions towards stable representative government. Our democratic ideals are often luxuries in thse folks eyes. Nice ones, to be sure, but if your worries sit at the level of putting food on your family's plates and a roof over their heads, you're prone to aligning with whoever most closely resembles a just master.

If the latest version in a parade of transient governments is unpredictable, capricious, corrupt, and unlikely to last, while the pious strongmen in your neighborhood gives you a fair price for your crop so long as you play ball, the choice dictated by enlightened self-interest is a pretty obvious one.

How 'bout a happy medium? Combine paying farmers to produce for the legit market with taking a page out of our own domestic playbook and pay farmers to leave a percentage of their field fallow. And then follow that up with aggressively offering alternative crops with perhaps a short-term financial incentive for switching (again, ala our own domestic playbook).

This would seem to do two things. 1.) Undercut the Taliban strategy by legitimizing the farmers via legitimizing their crops (which would foster good will between the farmers and the central government). And 2.) reduce the quantity of opiates actually being produced while transitioning the farmers to less problematic crops.

I agree with BK's conundrum. But a huge part of it hinges on goodwill between the citizenry and the central government. So there are ways of negating the conundrum to some extent.

Ahh, yes. Let's export our practice of subsidized farming. Afghanistan needs cheap high fructose corn syrup. And ethanol. Lots and lots of ethanol!

Make sure no one gets subsidized fro growing anything we already grow in America though. No more human casualties of free trade, man! The global economy is a lie. Smash the system!

[That's not directed at you BTW Kevin, I'm punchy and riffing a little. Long day. I am definitely in favor of some substantial measure of good will between government and the people, and the middle east seems to specialize in such deficits.]